Does it bother you that we are mostly hated?

kingstongraham

neeb wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

john1967 wrote:

Yes it bothers me I'm hated because I just want to get home safely and see my family and it would be nice for my wife not to be on tender hooks every time I'm out cycling.

More perspective needed. While things can be (and need to be) improved, the stats say there are about 1100 serious injuries per billion miles cycled. If you cycle 100 miles every week, you will on average have a serious injury once every 175 years.

Where's that stat from as a matter of interest? It seems pretty incredible. I suppose it depends on how you define a "serious" injury. Subjectively it seems to me that most road cyclists who've been cycling for a few decades have had at least one accident involving something like a minor fracture, concussion or serious cuts and bruises.

And if serious means life-changing or fatal, then it's actually a very scary statistic. It would mean that if you cycle 100 miles a week for 50 years or equivalent (you are a lifelong cyclist basically) you have something like a 25-30% of being killed or suffering a life-changing injury...

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 016-01.pdf

It's way too high, clearly, but what I take from it is that my wife shouldn't be on tenterhooks every time I ride my bike.

wolfsbane2k

Frankiemann93 wrote:

... make life hard for car drivers to get past.... .

You know that's the UK's National Cycle Standard teaches that's the exact behaviour to take in certain instances, right?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-standard-for-cycle-training wrote:

"why primary position (centre of the lane) is suitable for negotiating junctions, where roads narrow, on bends, where there is not enough room for to be overtaken, and when I am riding at the speed of other traffic"

Which is why many who "take cycling a bit over the top I have found are more prone to doing this" - because they've been buzzed/forced into dangerous situations where they've NOT done this. It's especially prevelant in urban environments.

I'm now, firmly, in the latter category.
The driver behind me has no RIGHT to overtake me. If I feel it's safe for them to overtake me in my lane, I'll let them by moving left, but i'll hold option depending on a number of factors, including traffic ahead, if they are tailgating (I'm much more likely to ride primary if they are tailgating, because they are likely to take the smallest possible gap that might appear to squeeze through) etc.

The bike is a carriage - And as such, am allowed to use the full lane for my own safety.

wolfsbane2k

neeb wrote:

Crescent wrote:

What I was suggesting was that in a filtering scenario in stop/start traffic, for example, would a cyclist be happy if a car passed them as closely as they were prepared to pass the car? I suspect not in some cases.

Of course not, because the two situations are obviously completely incomparable. The cyclist is much more aware of the distance involved and the likely consequences of screwing it up are on utterly different scales.

The point someone else made about car doors is fair enough, but that's a specific situation where it's sensible to leave room when passing, not a sensible general rule.

Indeed. The DFT advice is cycle lanes should be 2m where small sections of 1.5m may be acceptable; .
1.2m is allowable only when it's being the cycling infrastructure for filtering past slow moving, or stopped traffic.

Cycle Friendly Infrastructure 1996 wrote:

Recommended Width - 2.0m
Widths down to 1.2m may be valuable in specific circumstances, for example where queuing traffic blocks the cyclist’s route, but for short stretches only "

wolfsbane2k

Crescent wrote:

General rule for me on the road is that I don't put my bike where I wouldn't put my car. Designated cycle lanes are fair enough but in mainstream traffic I'm not a fan of filtering, too much ambiguity and scope for conflict. Road sense.

But then you might as well be a car, and unable to take advantage of the benefits of being a space efficient mode of transport, because someone ahead is waiting to turn right, and a queue of 20 cars are waiting behind them, for example.

However, I agree; road sense, and defensive riding is essential.

bongofish

Wolfsbane2k wrote:

Crescent wrote:

General rule for me on the road is that I don't put my bike where I wouldn't put my car. Designated cycle lanes are fair enough but in mainstream traffic I'm not a fan of filtering, too much ambiguity and scope for conflict. Road sense.

But then you might as well be a car, and unable to take advantage of the benefits of being a space efficient mode of transport, because someone ahead is waiting to turn right, and a queue of 20 cars are waiting behind them, for example.

However, I agree; road sense, and defensive riding is essential.

So if you don't filter you maise aswell be in a car? Great logic that. Forget about the fitness or the thrill of being outside or the fact that 35moh on a bike is a thrill compared to being in a car. But no, it's all about the filtering.

Worst comment I've seen on this forum so far.

kingstongraham

Bongofish wrote:

Wolfsbane2k wrote:

Crescent wrote:

General rule for me on the road is that I don't put my bike where I wouldn't put my car. Designated cycle lanes are fair enough but in mainstream traffic I'm not a fan of filtering, too much ambiguity and scope for conflict. Road sense.

But then you might as well be a car, and unable to take advantage of the benefits of being a space efficient mode of transport, because someone ahead is waiting to turn right, and a queue of 20 cars are waiting behind them, for example.

However, I agree; road sense, and defensive riding is essential.

So if you don't filter you maise aswell be in a car? Great logic that. Forget about the fitness or the thrill of being outside or the fact that 35moh on a bike is a thrill compared to being in a car. But no, it's all about the filtering.

Worst comment I've seen on this forum so far.

Read more threads.

timothyw

Read this thread, for that matter. I already made the point that if I don't filter past queues of cars I might as well be in one.....

bongofish

TimothyW wrote:

Read this thread, for that matter. I already made the point that if I don't filter past queues of cars I might as well be in one.....

So you just ride as a quicker for m of transport? Fair enough if that is the case. I ride because I enjoy it. I do wonder why if the only reason you ride is to get there quicker why you spend your spare time on a bike forum.

navrig2

Wolfsbane2k wrote:

The driver behind me has no RIGHT to overtake me. If I feel it's safe for them to overtake me in my lane, I'll let them by moving left, but i'll hold option depending on a number of factors, including traffic ahead, if they are tailgating (I'm much more likely to ride primary if they are tailgating, because they are likely to take the smallest possible gap that might appear to squeeze through) etc.

The bike is a carriage - And as such, am allowed to use the full lane for my own safety.

Totally agree. I recently saw a graphic on FB from a police force which backed this approach. Wish I had downloaded it.

Found it



From

https://www.palmersgreencommunity.org.u ... e-bicycles

neeb

Navrig2 wrote:

From

https://www.palmersgreencommunity.org.u ... e-bicycles

I think I want a jersey with that diagram on the back of it! (except I'd need to get tailgated for anyone to be able to read it).

Cheeseface22

Good infographic. That's been published in 19th July 2017 and it's first time I saw it.

The simple message to the car driver is "must not overtake a cyclist if you cannot straddle adjacent lanes"

Simple and clear?

Found something similar:

Twitter: RPU - Surrey Police (29 July 2016)


Maybe a simpler sign / symbol based on the bottom two images could become a road sign that cyclists can put on the back of their jerseys or attach on their backpacks?

Cheeseface22

oh it looks like there are road signs in Australia:



Instead of indicating a fixed distance (which can be very subjective when passing, even with a yard stick out of a car window...), emphasise the lane line so drivers can judge objectively how far away they need to be away from a cyclist when passing.

PS. I don't agree with the figure of a cyclist on the sign. Buff upper body and pigeon legs?!

timothyw

Bongofish wrote:

TimothyW wrote:

Read this thread, for that matter. I already made the point that if I don't filter past queues of cars I might as well be in one.....

So you just ride as a quicker for m of transport? Fair enough if that is the case. I ride because I enjoy it. I do wonder why if the only reason you ride is to get there quicker why you spend your spare time on a bike forum.

Nah, I ride for a lot of reasons,

A lot of the time though, I'm riding to get to/from work - not really my idea of fun sitting in London traffic any longer than necessary.

My recreational rides, I don't ride where there is traffic...

the_cyclist_of_catan

Superkenners wrote:

Crescent wrote:

Worst culprits are the ones who put themselves into a small gap (either by filtering or undertaking) that would have them ranting and raving if a driver was to put them in a similarly small gap

Perspective required. A cyclist going through a small gap is in control of the situation, whereas he is not if a car swipes past him with a few mm to spare. The most obvious difference between these two scenarios is the speed involved. Very rare to see a cyclist undercut you in a tiny gap at 50mph!

A quick demonstration. Wave your own fist in front of your nose at a distance of 1cm. No problem. Let ME wave MY fist in front of your nose at a distance of 1cm. Feels very, very different.

And in these situations, whether the driver passes the cyclist or the cyclist passes the driver, if it goes wrong it’s the cyclist who gets hurt - never the driver.

wolfsbane2k

The Cyclist of Catan wrote:

Superkenners wrote:

Crescent wrote:

Worst culprits are the ones who put themselves into a small gap (either by filtering or undertaking) that would have them ranting and raving if a driver was to put them in a similarly small gap

Perspective required. A cyclist going through a small gap is in control of the situation, whereas he is not if a car swipes past him with a few mm to spare. The most obvious difference between these two scenarios is the speed involved. Very rare to see a cyclist undercut you in a tiny gap at 50mph!

A quick demonstration. Wave your own fist in front of your nose at a distance of 1cm. No problem. Let ME wave MY fist in front of your nose at a distance of 1cm. Feels very, very different.

And in these situations, whether the driver passes the cyclist or the cyclist passes the driver, if it goes wrong it’s the cyclist who gets hurt - never the driver.

this.